I think South Korea has shown great restraint in it's rhetoric, but I don't think they'll invade the North. the ROK is still dependent on the US Army to keep the North from coming through the DMZ. I do however definitely think that if a DPRK warship enters South Korean waters, it's probably not going to leave.

There have been periodic skirmishes like this ever since the cease-fire. The U.S. and South Korea always have electronic surveillance ships and aircraft off the North Korean coast. Sometimes they get too close and the North throws a figurative brush back pitch.

This was worse than most, but unlikely the start of anything significant.

Has there ever been such a thing as peace? I think war is a natural consequence of humanity essentially being a militant apex predator species.

all warin humans is driven by inequalities, so in a sense, marx was right about 'class struggles' its bythe fact that the earths surface is differentially endowed with different characteristics based on geology and geographical location.

all struggles are driven by the principle of limiting factors.

or for you maths heads, the idlowest common denominator.

this principle is noticable in agriculture where a soil with excess amounts of carbon nitrogen and minerals, wont grownearly as much due to a lack of phosphorous, i.e a limiting factor is the idea thatgrowh moves to the level of its mostlimited resources, in agricultre, crops will only grow as though all nutrients in the soil are atthe proportions with phosphorous,

as a long example
i soil has 2000g/ hectare of oil has 3000g/Ha ofcarbon but only 600g/Ha of phosphorous,

if the proportions of nutrients needed to grow a plant per season are 40g of nitrogen 60of carbon and 20 grams of phosphorous, or a ratio of 2:3:1

then
since there are 20 30' in 600 50 40's in 2000 and 50 60's in 3000
therefore
no matter how much arbon and nitrogen youhave, you cant grow as many because if you triedto grow as many plantsas as there was nitrogen i.e 50, youd findyou wernt able to because
50x 20 =1000, and since the phosphorous content is only 600, you cant.

however this feat is not justconfined to humanity.. hate to echo hitlers words but, all nature struggles for the ability to survive, it seems to be the natral course that, when things get hairy, its mostly everyone for themselves. we can see this in disaster situations. where the 'anomolous' personality types both positive and negative often are more prevalent,
this is due to thefact that since resources are more scarce and risk factors are higher its a more important decision what ou do with those you alreadyhave

and thats why those who are the monstrous ones, and the 'saints' are seen to be visible, and thats why it was said 'adversity reveals the genius of a general, goodfortune conceals it' and that'hard tmes bring out the best and the worst of us.

because this is sortofwhat is thecase. saya community sends people to find food, a person with a more selfcentred disposition would be more likelyto hide whathes found for imself, whreas a less selfish person wouldnt, and would in times of say, one person loses their arm, or a tool, the more cooperatively minded person would bewilling toshare to make up the slack and this can be evidenced by acts of heroism, when this is taken to minor extremes when this feeling surpasses the desire for personal safety.

this is evidents in animals. and even plants, that said, competition isnt always the case. as humans did realise, some teamwork is necessary, as evidenced by symbiosis, and in society, domestication of animals.

however. i think it puts things into perspective that of all the animals asidefrom us the only ones that have such centralised populations, have deep stratification of roles within a species, build complex structures and who occasionally war upon other commuities of the same species for resources....

are ants, termites, and bees. as well as similar creatures like wasps and a few others.

while many animal groups do have SOME degree of dominant/ subject members like lion prides and wolf packs. they are by no means as densely layred (as far as we know anyways)